RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-01819 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. Section 4 of Special Order A-X000026 be amended to read: ITINERARY: 1 Oct 2006 - 15 Jul 2007; Transportation: FROM: Anthem, AZ, TO: Roosevelt Armory, 1614 W Roosevelt St, Phoenix AZ 85007, RETURN TO: Anthem, AZ. Then ITINERARY; 16 July 2007-30 Sep 2007, Transportation: FROM: Anthem, AZ TO: 214th RG, 5260 E. Gafford Way, Davis-Monthan AFB AZ 85707, RETURN TO: Anthem. 2. Section 6 of Special Order A-X000240 be amended to delete household goods shipment authorization. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 1. The duty location on Special Order A-X000026 is incorrect and is neither indicative of the actual duty he performed or the commander’s original intent. From 28 July 2006 through 15 July 2007, he was ordered by his commander to perform duty at the Roosevelt Armory in Phoenix Arizona (AZ) because during that timeframe there was no building or office space for Detachment (Det) members to perform their duties at Tucson AZ. As a necessity in order to provide working space for members, the Det commander assigned personnel to the Roosevelt Armory. This helped to assist with the Joint Federal Travel Regulations (JFTR) travel policy that travel orders may not be retroactively modified except to correct an error or show original intent. In accordance with (IAW) the JFTR U7150-A4, a PCS should not have been authorized for a tour that covers less than 180 days. He was ordered to, and performed, duty for less than 90 days in Tucson (16 Jul 07 - 30 Sept 07) during the period of his temporary AGR tour. His orders were temporary orders and PCS orders were issued incorrectly. 2. He has attempted to have this order corrected in the past and was told by the Arizona National Guard Human Resource Officer (AZ/HRO) that an orders correction “cannot be processed with HR due to the appeal process through the Defense Finance and Accounting System (DFAS) office.” He has been unable to file a claim with DFAS because he has yet to receive a valid debt letter. Additionally his concern is that if the orders were left uncorrected DFAS would be determining entitlements based on incorrect orders. He does not want to start the appeal process until he has orders that are corrected to show his commander’s original intent. There is no doubt, from the many documents provided, that his commander’s intent was for him to work out of the Roosevelt Armory, that he performed his duty as ordered via the statement of understanding (SOU), and that Special Order A-X000026 should be changed to reflect this established fact. In support of his request, the applicant submits copies of Special Orders A-X000026 and A-X000240, memorandums and email correspondence concerning his attempts to have his special orders corrected. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: According to documents extracted from his Military Personnel Record, the applicant is serving in the Air Force Reserve in the grade of Lieutenant Colonel, (Lt Col), O-5. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 1. NGB/A1PP recommends denial. A1PP states the applicant's place of duty was at the Roosevelt Armory in Phoenix, Arizona and exceeded 180 days. Both special orders A-X000026 and A- X000240 should be updated to note the duty location as Roosevelt Armory, Phoenix AZ. Additionally, since the applicant performed duties in Phoenix for more than 180 days PCS entitlement is authorized. Therefore, they recommend the PCS and HHG authorization not be removed from his orders. The applicant provided two sworn statements by both of his supervisors affirming his place of duty from 28 July 2006 through 15 July 2007 was at the Roosevelt Armory in Phoenix, Arizona. According to the JFTR. “per diem is not payable at the duty location when the duty is for more than 180 days at one location.” PCS allowances are appropriate per the JFTR paragraph U7150FlB. Special Order A-X000240 should be corrected to note duty at the Roosevelt Armory in Phoenix, Arizona instead of Tucson International Airport; however, this correction would not change the PCS entitlement/requirement since the applicant performed his military duties in Phoenix rather than Tucson. The complete NGB/A1PP evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In further support of his appeal, the applicant provides additional copies of Special Orders A-X000026 and A-X000240, memorandums and email correspondence relating to his attempts to have his special orders corrected. The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit E. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations. 2. The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file. 3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice. We took careful notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR) and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. Therefore, in the absence of persuasive evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. 4. The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issue(s) involved. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that the application was denied without a personal appearance; and that the application will only be reconsidered upon the submission of newly discovered relevant evidence not considered with this application. ________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 28 January 2014, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2013-01819: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 10 April 2013, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, NGB/A1PP, dated 11 June 2013, w/atchs. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 August 2013. Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 26 August 2013. 1 2